Bitcoin Forum
December 08, 2016, 10:06:07 AM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Satoshi Dice polluting Bitcoin?  (Read 15171 times)
kano
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1932


Linux since 1997 RedHat 4


View Profile
June 17, 2012, 11:57:55 PM
 #81

Anyone know the pointer to the IRC log Smiley

Pool: https://kano.is BTC: 1KanoiBupPiZfkwqB7rfLXAzPnoTshAVmb
CKPool and CGMiner developer, IRC FreeNode #ckpool and #cgminer kanoi
Help keep Bitcoin secure by mining on pools with Stratum, the best protocol to mine Bitcoins with ASIC hardware
1481191567
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481191567

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481191567
Reply with quote  #2

1481191567
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481191567
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481191567

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481191567
Reply with quote  #2

1481191567
Report to moderator
jgarzik
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470


View Profile
June 18, 2012, 12:43:00 AM
 #82

I have seen any miners complaining.  The whinning and doom/gloom is from people to cheap to pay a fractional penny in fees and thus having lower priority tx.  Nothing more.

It is far more than that.  Non-SatoshiDice bitcoin users are impacted, much more rapidly than most had expected.

At a sufficient traffic level, SatoshiDice could shut out other transactions [of lesser fee].

Sure, the market will catch up -- but this happens so rapidly that users become trapped by poor fee design and poor fee UI design.  All users will see is their transactions taking longer to confirm, without having a good idea why.


Jeff Garzik, bitcoin core dev team and BitPay engineer; opinions are my own, not my employer.
Donations / tip jar: 1BrufViLKnSWtuWGkryPsKsxonV2NQ7Tcj
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


Gerald Davis


View Profile
June 18, 2012, 12:46:16 AM
 #83

I have seen any miners complaining.  The whinning and doom/gloom is from people to cheap to pay a fractional penny in fees and thus having lower priority tx.  Nothing more.

It is far more than that.  Non-SatoshiDice bitcoin users are impacted, much more rapidly than most had expected.

At a sufficient traffic level, SatoshiDice could shut out other transactions [of lesser fee].

Sure, the market will catch up -- but this happens so rapidly that users become trapped by poor fee design and poor fee UI design.  All users will see is their transactions taking longer to confirm, without having a good idea why.



OR ... they could improve network security and pay a fee >0.0005.  I mean paying say 0.002 BTC is roughly 1 US penny per tx.  A penny.  If average user makes 3 tx a day.  We are talking < $10.00 a year in fees.  However in aggregate it could be a big boost to network revenue and thus security especially after the subsidy reduction.
jgarzik
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470


View Profile
June 18, 2012, 12:50:59 AM
 #84

I have seen any miners complaining.  The whinning and doom/gloom is from people to cheap to pay a fractional penny in fees and thus having lower priority tx.  Nothing more.

It is far more than that.  Non-SatoshiDice bitcoin users are impacted, much more rapidly than most had expected.

At a sufficient traffic level, SatoshiDice could shut out other transactions [of lesser fee].

Sure, the market will catch up -- but this happens so rapidly that users become trapped by poor fee design and poor fee UI design.  All users will see is their transactions taking longer to confirm, without having a good idea why.



OR ... they could improve network security and pay a fee >0.0005.  I mean paying say 0.002 BTC is roughly 1 US penny per tx.  A penny.  If average user makes 3 tx a day.  We are talking < $10.00 a year in fees.  However in aggregate it could be a big boost to network revenue and thus security especially after the subsidy reduction.

You seem to have missed the final paragraph that you quoted.  A user is given no awareness from the system that network security may be improved by adding more fees.  They just know their transactions are slow.


Jeff Garzik, bitcoin core dev team and BitPay engineer; opinions are my own, not my employer.
Donations / tip jar: 1BrufViLKnSWtuWGkryPsKsxonV2NQ7Tcj
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


Gerald Davis


View Profile
June 18, 2012, 12:56:26 AM
 #85

You seem to have missed the final paragraph that you quoted.  A user is given no awareness from the system that network security may be improved by adding more fees.  They just know their transactions are slow.

Eventually the GUI will be improved (possibly looking at the memory pool size, and avg fee and providing recommendations).  In the short term hell it doesn't matter why a user does it.   Tell them it makes it easier.  Pay a higher fee and it you go first.
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1988


View Profile
June 18, 2012, 01:19:44 AM
 #86

You seem to have missed the final paragraph that you quoted.  A user is given no awareness from the system that network security may be improved by adding more fees.  They just know their transactions are slow.

Eventually the GUI will be improved (possibly looking at the memory pool size, and avg fee and providing recommendations).  In the short term hell it doesn't matter why a user does it.   Tell them it makes it easier.  Pay a higher fee and it you go first.

Bitcoin really does seem to be turning sour in some ways which is disappointing to me.  A 'peer' (of 'p2p') is looking like it will be someone who can muster datacenter resources.  And it looks to me like this is appealing to those (very small minority) who will be able to gouge users with fees.  The future of Bitcoin looks like it will be a race between the increase in usefulness/userbase and the operational bloat/operator exploitation of things from here forward.


justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
June 18, 2012, 01:24:39 AM
 #87

Eventually the GUI will be improved (possibly looking at the memory pool size, and avg fee and providing recommendations).
Until something this happens there won't be effective price discovery with regards to transaction fees.
Inaba
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile WWW
June 18, 2012, 03:28:06 AM
 #88

You seem to have missed the final paragraph that you quoted.  A user is given no awareness from the system that network security may be improved by adding more fees.  They just know their transactions are slow.

Eventually the GUI will be improved (possibly looking at the memory pool size, and avg fee and providing recommendations).  In the short term hell it doesn't matter why a user does it.   Tell them it makes it easier.  Pay a higher fee and it you go first.

Bitcoin really does seem to be turning sour in some ways which is disappointing to me.  A 'peer' (of 'p2p') is looking like it will be someone who can muster datacenter resources.  And it looks to me like this is appealing to those (very small minority) who will be able to gouge users with fees.  The future of Bitcoin looks like it will be a race between the increase in usefulness/userbase and the operational bloat/operator exploitation of things from here forward.




Say what?  This just doesn't make any sense in the current context of the Bitcoin network.  Right now, the only people who can effectively mine are those that CAN muster data center resources.  I don't see any pools mining off of a home connection.  While you may be a miner on a pool, you are not a miner of blocks, the pool is... so your statement already exists and has for quite some time.  Sure, you may have your client running on your home computer, but you aren't mining blocks on it, so the whole premise of this thread is completely irrelevant to you, the home user of Bitcoin.  It only applies to miners, and only pools are miners of blocks.  (I'm not including the outliers of large solominers, etc... at least 65 - 70% of the Bitcoin network is being mined by a "traditional" pool)

If you're searching these lines for a point, you've probably missed it.  There was never anything there in the first place.
jgarzik
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470


View Profile
June 18, 2012, 03:37:27 AM
 #89

It looks like at least a few of the SatoshiDice users are now using sendmany, which should help:

http://blockexplorer.com/tx/710f05441d312dc909bc5803c461006bc9966403a77d6d63895845a60f521bc3
http://blockexplorer.com/tx/95d3347d8412af8905f39b17617b2b02366fee90f134407601319abf2ed48bfb

If you are using a bot to play SatoshiDice, please update it to use 'sendmany'.  SatoshiDice even mentions this under their "multiple bets per transaction" section of Tips & Tricks: http://www.satoshidice.com/advanced.php

Jeff Garzik, bitcoin core dev team and BitPay engineer; opinions are my own, not my employer.
Donations / tip jar: 1BrufViLKnSWtuWGkryPsKsxonV2NQ7Tcj
unclemantis
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98


(:firstbits => "1mantis")


View Profile
July 24, 2012, 12:40:07 PM
 #90

Yes it is! Each transaction costs 0.0005 to play and when someone sends someone else a valid transaction with a fee of less than .0005 it is kept in limbo until the miners feel like verifying it.

QUIT GAMBLING FOR TWO FUCKING SECONDS PEOPLE!

PHP, Ruby, Rails, ASP, JavaScript, SQL
20+ years experience w/ Internet Technologies
Bitcoin OTC | GPG Public Key                                                                               thoughts?
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


Gerald Davis


View Profile
July 24, 2012, 12:57:45 PM
 #91

Yes it is! Each transaction costs 0.0005 to play and when someone sends someone else a valid transaction with a fee of less than .0005 it is kept in limbo until the miners feel like verifying it.

QUIT GAMBLING FOR TWO FUCKING SECONDS PEOPLE!

Or YOU could pay a tx fee of 0.001 BTC and get ahead of SD in line.   You can have fast or you can have free you have no right to fast and free.  You vote with your wallet.


(for the record I have never used SD and likely never will.  It just annoys me when people too cheap to pay a fractional cent in fees complain that a paying customer is making their transactions slow).
unclescrooge
aka Raphy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 868


View Profile
July 24, 2012, 01:01:22 PM
 #92

Yes it is! Each transaction costs 0.0005 to play and when someone sends someone else a valid transaction with a fee of less than .0005 it is kept in limbo until the miners feel like verifying it.

QUIT GAMBLING FOR TWO FUCKING SECONDS PEOPLE!

Are you serious? So bitcoin has been designed to allow only the transactions  you see as "worthy"? Then i'm sorry to say it is doom to fail.

No if you want your transaction to pass faster, then pay a greated fee, or don't complain.

unclemantis
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98


(:firstbits => "1mantis")


View Profile
July 24, 2012, 01:02:00 PM
 #93

Yes it is! Each transaction costs 0.0005 to play and when someone sends someone else a valid transaction with a fee of less than .0005 it is kept in limbo until the miners feel like verifying it.

QUIT GAMBLING FOR TWO FUCKING SECONDS PEOPLE!

Are you serious? So bitcoin has been designed to allow only the transactions  you see as "worthy"? Then i'm sorry to say it is doom to fail.

No if you want your transaction to pass faster, then pay a greated fee, or don't complain.

How do I pay a fee to a pending transaction?

PHP, Ruby, Rails, ASP, JavaScript, SQL
20+ years experience w/ Internet Technologies
Bitcoin OTC | GPG Public Key                                                                               thoughts?
TangibleCryptography
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


Tangible Cryptography LLC


View Profile WWW
July 24, 2012, 01:23:53 PM
 #94

You need to pay a fee BEFORE it is a pending transaction (i.e. before you send it).
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1988


View Profile
July 25, 2012, 04:17:21 AM
 #95

Yes it is! Each transaction costs 0.0005 to play and when someone sends someone else a valid transaction with a fee of less than .0005 it is kept in limbo until the miners feel like verifying it.

QUIT GAMBLING FOR TWO FUCKING SECONDS PEOPLE!

Are you serious? So bitcoin has been designed to allow only the transactions  you see as "worthy"? Then i'm sorry to say it is doom to fail.

No if you want your transaction to pass faster, then pay a greated fee, or don't complain.

The "Want Bitcoin to work? Pay up, bitches." attitude is a little off-putting and will likely effect the trajectory of the project and makeup of the participants.  I wouldn't expect that it doom anything to failure per-se (and it's hard to tell exactly what you are asserting is destined for that bin) but it will almost certainly have an impact.

As an example, I, for one, would rather pay fees to organizations who can be provoked into paying taxes most easily...and would rather still simply pay a tax...vs. putting it into the pocket of someone who exploited the Bitcoin project.  Even though half of this tax booty would go toward killing people I've no desire to kill, the other half goes to roads, bridges, schools, etc.


DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


Gerald Davis


View Profile
July 25, 2012, 04:28:37 AM
 #96

None of that made any sense at all.  No idea what taxes, war, and bridges has to do with bitcoin fees but Bitcoin fees are PAID TO MINERS.

Are you somehow saying Bitcoin miners are exploiting Bitcoin?  The subsidy will continue to decline and transaction volume will continually increase.  Fees (although tiny on a per tx basis) will make a larger % of miner compensation.  You know the miners who are keeping the network secure, the secure network which is the only thing that causes Bitcoins to have any value.

Once again YOU AREN'T REQUIRED TO PAY.  As long as your tx is valid it will eventually be confirmed.  However to complain that transactions aren't both free AND fast is simply foolish.  Someone has to pay for the network.  So if you get free and slower be happy someone else is paying to keep your coins safe.
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1988


View Profile
July 25, 2012, 04:52:58 AM
 #97

None of that made any sense at all.  No idea what taxes, war, and bridges has to do with bitcoin fees but Bitcoin fees are PAID TO MINERS.

Are you somehow saying Bitcoin miners are exploiting Bitcoin?  The subsidy will continue to decline and transaction volume will continually increase.  Fees (although tiny on a per tx basis) will make a larger % of miner compensation.  You know the miners who are keeping the network secure, the secure network which is the only thing that causes Bitcoins to have any value.

Once again YOU AREN'T REQUIRED TO PAY.  As long as your tx is valid it will eventually be confirmed.  However to complain that transactions aren't both free AND fast is simply foolish.  Someone has to pay for the network.  So if you get free and slower be happy someone else is paying to keep your coins safe.

Let me reiterate to make things a bit more clear.  Even with our current massively corrupt corp/gov system, I would STILL prefer to be gouged by them than by Bitcoin miners.  There is an amusing correlation between government protecting me from a non-existent Al Qaeda threat and you protecting me from some non-existent massive 51% attack.  The chief difference is that I have a road to my house complements of a few of my tax dollars and sometimes the police will show up so I don't have to shoot some degenerate tweaker who is trying to steal my stuff whereas from you I get basically diddly-squat on a day-to-day basis.

I wish Bitcoin would have been designed such that large conglomerates of miners could not dictate who gets what service and that the network were realistically able to be secured and operated by the participants in the economy, but as they say, "if wishes were horses than beggars would ride."  It would be interesting in an academic sense to know what Satoshi would think.

In point of fact, I've not made a transaction for half a year so the fees are not hurting me (and the protection is, in fact, welcome although it is uncomfortable to be 'protected' by people I don't particularly trust.)  The attitude could cost me depending on it's impact on the trajectory of the project because I really only treat it as a speculative adventure.  But that is part of the calculus of the speculation so I'm cool with it.


DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


Gerald Davis


View Profile
July 25, 2012, 05:02:10 AM
 #98

Quote
I wish Bitcoin would have been designed such that large conglomerates of miners could not dictate who gets what service and that the network were realistically able to be secured and operated by the participants in the economy, but as they say, "if wishes were horses than beggars would ride."  It would be interesting in an academic sense to know what Satoshi would think.

Satoshi would probably be wondering why you didn't read his paper and started spouting out nonsense instead.

1) You never need to pay a fee.  Period.  If you are willing to wait for a miner (possibly yourself) to include your free tx in a block then your tx will enventually be confirmed with no fee.  "Gouging" is pure hyperbole.  We are talking about a fractional cent and only if you want priority processing.  It would be like the postal service offering overnight mail for a quarter penny and first class mail for free and could complain they are "gouging" you.

Miner's can force you to pay a fee and they can't prevent you from getting service.  That is just pure nonsense trolling on your part.  In the absence of govt intervention, natural monpolies, or artificial barriers to entry it is not possible for a cartel to force prices higher.  Sure DeepBit could stop accepting tx with fee <0.01 BTC (they don't BTW) but then the rest of the miners would make more profits and miners would leave DeepBit.

There is a cost to running the network.  Unlike the govt, Bitcoin can't pay that cost through a monopoly on violence.  Today subsidies pay 99% of the network operating cost and fees 1%.  Over the next century that role will be reversed.

BTW: not sure why your "miner hate" was directed to me.  I am no longer expanding my farm.  I still have my 10GH/s of rigs (I accept all valid non-spam tx even free ones) and honestly I am just running the rigs until they die or become economically nonviable.  I have no plans on buying FPGA or ASICs so it is only a matter of time before I no longer mine at all.
mem
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644


Herp Derp PTY LTD


View Profile
July 25, 2012, 05:24:55 AM
 #99

Yes it is! Each transaction costs 0.0005 to play and when someone sends someone else a valid transaction with a fee of less than .0005 it is kept in limbo until the miners feel like verifying it.

QUIT GAMBLING FOR TWO FUCKING SECONDS PEOPLE!

or better yet for every bet you make on SD make one on another gambling site as well Wink 
Spread the love.

tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1988


View Profile
July 25, 2012, 05:31:07 AM
 #100

Quote
I wish Bitcoin would have been designed such that large conglomerates of miners could not dictate who gets what service and that the network were realistically able to be secured and operated by the participants in the economy, but as they say, "if wishes were horses than beggars would ride."  It would be interesting in an academic sense to know what Satoshi would think.

Satoshi would probably be wondering why you didn't read his paper and started spouting out nonsense instead.

1) You never need to pay a fee.  Period.  If you are willing to wait for a miner (possibly yourself) to include your free tx in a block then your tx will enventually be confirmed with no fee.  "Gouging" is pure hyperbole.  We are talking about a fractional cent and only if you want priority processing.  It would be like the postal service offering overnight mail for a quarter penny and first class mail for free and could complain they are "gouging" you.

Miner's can force you to pay a fee and they can't prevent you from getting service.  That is just pure nonsense trolling on your part.  In the absence of govt intervention, natural monpolies, or artificial barriers to entry it is not possible for a cartel to force prices higher.  Sure DeepBit could stop accepting tx with fee <0.01 BTC (they don't BTW) but then the rest of the miners would make more profits and miners would leave DeepBit.

There is a cost to running the network.  Unlike the govt, Bitcoin can't pay that cost through a monopoly on violence.  Today subsidies pay 99% of the network operating cost and fees 1%.  Over the next century that role will be reversed.

BTW: not sure why your "miner hate" was directed to me.  I am no longer expanding my farm.  I still have my 10GH/s of rigs (I accept all valid non-spam tx even free ones) and honestly I am just running the rigs until they die or become economically nonviable.  I have no plans on buying FPGA or ASICs so it is only a matter of time before I no longer mine at all.

I missed the part in Satoshi's paper about unions of miners forming pools which are capable of hashing a lionshare of the blocks before other players.  You say 'never' and 'period', but we (hopefully) in the early teething stages of Bitcoin at this point.  I might remind you that at least one user remembers a point when a single mining pool operator was able to choose the BIP he desired.

Clue me in because I simply do not know, but say a large pool or agreement between several large pool operators resulted in certain Txn's being not included.  Lets say, for the sake of aurgument that they are ones which didn't include the fee the operators would like to see.  Let's say that the group included 90% of the hashing power.  Is there a way for users to either not ante-up the fee and not expect to have to wait several hours or more for non-alligned miner to get lucky and a Txn to go through?

If you are saying that DeepBit would lose marketshare simply by virtue of loss of traffic from those willing to pay .005 but not .01 then I actually can see a mechanism to see things tugged to a reasonable rate and have somewhat less trouble with things.  I do retain a good deal of nervousness about the groupings of mining power and the mechanisms which could discourage collusion.  It seems to me that it would be very profitable (and thus highly likely) to see 'strikes' where for all intents and purposes, a significant majority of miners group together and demand their payola least the economy ceases to work well.


Pages: « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!